Crucial notes shown at ICAC

The businessmen who urged then NSW Labor mining minister
Ian Macdonald
to bypass a tender process and grant a lucrative coal licence were aware of the risks for the minister and sought to play down the potential ­profits, handwritten notes tendered at a corruption inquiry suggest.

The notes, taken by former PwC director
Peter Demura
and shown at the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption on Thursday, record a December 2007 meeting ­allegedly attended by former union ­official
John Maitland
and his business associate
Craig Ransley
.

The two men were pitching a plan for an underground training mine at Doyles Creek, near Newcastle, and were seeking a coal exploration licence from Mr Macdonald to advance the ­proposal. Mr Demura helped prepare a submission to the government on the plan. The ICAC is investigating the ­circumstances surrounding the granting of the licence in 2008.

“Need to demonstrate benefits and [that it is] not a goldmine for entrepreneurs," Mr Demura’s notes say.

The inquiry has previously heard allegations that the idea for a training mine was a sham to gain access to a lucrative coal resource.

Mr Demura repeatedly said he could not recall who had made the comments, but agreed the choice of words was unlikely to be his own.

“Are you being protective of anybody?" ICAC commissioner
David Ipp
, QC, asked.

Company Profile

Mr Maitland, a former national secretary of the
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
, was then the chairman of Doyles Creek Mining, a company set up by Mr Ransley and associate Andrew Poole.

The three made millions of dollars from the granting of the licence after Doyles Creek Mining was sold to the listed
NuCoal
in 2010.

Mr Demura’s notes record that the minister was “supportive" of the training mine proposal but the “PS [public service] not so enthusiastic".

He also recorded that there was “opposition from [then NSW treasurer] Michael Costa" to the mine plan.

Under the heading “Minister’s requests", Mr Demura wrote that the proposal “shouldn’t be seen as a privilege [for] entrepreneurs".

Under “Minister’s risk", he listed “incorrect discretion" and “therefore need for a compelling argument". He said he was referring to a risk the minister would not grant the licence.